Global silencing
So we need to get permission from Jordan to say things now.
[A] Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam. The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.
Yeah and because the ‘crimes’ are not crimes in places that are not, you know, insane. We’re not used to thinking of ‘insulting the prophet Muhammad’ as something that is covered by a Penal Code. We don’t want to get used to it, either.
Jordan’s attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn’t be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam…[T]he U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to “a particular religion.” The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse.
Well I guess no one will be reading Does God Hate Women? aloud at the UN HRC then. Too bad.
Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries…Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan’s extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants’ protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
So the noose tightens – a little more all the time.
This is ridiculous. I eat a pork chop with a bottle of beer on the tumb of the Prophet Muhammah. I blow my nose on the Koran. I’d use a more vulgar expression, but there are ladies present. Indict me please, Jordan.
>I’d use a more vulgar expression, but there are ladies present. Indict me please, Jordan.< I indict you for blatant sexism. That should have read “but there are women present.”
I’d rather have this Jordan decide what I can and cannot say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_(Katie_Price)
Jordan’s attempt to extend it’s Islamic rule to democratic countries is a further sign of the Great Religious Endarkenment that is struggling for supremacy in the world. However, I’m not entirely sure that vulgarity sheds much more light on things than Jordan’s judicial system.
Agreed, Eric.
In fact I suggest to Ophelia that a couple of them be deleted. It’s not a question of censorship, but too many comment blogs degenerate into smutty stuff like this, and I hate to think it is acceptable on B&W.
Actually, the vulgar comments, at least mine, were in solidarity with those indicted for blasphemy in Jordan It is a way of saying: if you want to arrest them, arrest me too. However, I have no problem with my comments being deleted.
amos: I wasn’t referring to your posting (though I don’t think the way you expressed your view is conducive to sensible discussion), but to the two by Clem.
Yeh. It is, indeed, not a question of censorship; too many comment blogs do indeed degenerate into slums (of various kinds), and I refuse to let that happen here.
Ah, but lest we forget, our lovely High Court here in the UK is very willing to indulge ‘libel tourists’, especially if they are of an…’easily offended’ nature, shall we say?
(anyone needing quick reminder of events click here )
I know, 2 wrongs just make an American election [:-)], but who are we to deny our middle-eastern chums their right to copy our example? :-)
Whatever the wrongs of the use of British libel laws from abroad, the comparison of this with what Jordan is attempting to do is absurd.
British libel law is an international threat to free speech. The comparison with Jordan is IMHO weak but not absurd.
But this isn’t to say, as whatabouters will, that we should shut up about Jordan. Quite the opposite. We should oppose forum shopping in all its forms.
‘No borders’ kangaroo Internet courts is really all about subjugation of Western standards of free speech. Fear and coercion by foreign phony courts – with no faces will never be tolerated by westerners.
Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries…
I hope Interpol told Amman precisely where to bugger off! ;_! These fundamentalists would take the nose off you if you dared breathe incorrectly.
The cruelty which is taught to Saudi children in schools – see report on Saudi textbooks is probably on a par with that of Amman – judging by their bullying tactics.
These fundamentalists would take the noses off everyone if they dared to breathe incorrectly.
Allen,
Impressive argument there. Well done. I feel suitably chastened & corrected…
…or not (seeing as how I was the one who highlighted the Jordanian nonsense in the first place, for starters – oh, and the latest Saudi fatwa-against-truth, too)
Of course the two cases aren’t equivalent, but it is relevant to highlight it when we wish to hold others’ to certain standards of behaviour regarding freedom of expression.
I had hoped the inclusion of the ‘:-)’ characters might indicate I wasn’t seriously advocating equivalence…
Next time I’ll make it more bleedin’ obvious.
I don’t know about Barry Colquhoun, but Professor David Colquhoun of University College London recently used the word ‘Endarkenment’ in a piece in the Guardian recently.
>I had hoped the inclusion of the ‘:-)’ characters might indicate I wasn’t seriously advocating equivalence…< Okay, Andy. Fair enough. I dashed that off too hastily on the spur of the moment. Apologies.
P.S. I dashed that one off, too, and I think I was a bit hard on myself! The reason for my over-brusque response was that with the Jordan stuff, for the named people their lives could be directly at risk from nutters who take the “law” into their own hands.
But I should have taken time to make my point in a more balanced way.
Allen,
semi-apology accepted :-)
The Jordanian stuff is indeed far more dangerous – but so’s the UK court ruling:
One of its side-effects is to stifle criticism/exposure of an incredibly rich individual, regarding whom there may well be extremely good evidence that they are directly funding international terrorism…
(sorry about that sentence – thought I ought to word it in such a way that B&W couldn’t be held liable for anything in particular…just in case!)
Now, since many of the key backers of organisations who seem to be promoting terrorist activities are of a very similar nature to the gentleman in question, the High Court’s precedent is likely to dissuade proper scrutiny of them, also…
(phew. I hate trying not to say what I might mean – allegedly)
Thanks for caution Andy!